This thread does not seem to have a point. Are we really talking about North vs South again? In the end does it matter? Is this thread political
since we have a black President? It appears some parts of this country is still trying to drag the hillbilly's to the 21st century.

if you had bothered to read it, you'd realize this is about States Rights vs Federalism, you know, the real reasons behind the War of Northern
Aggression.
and that it ... Tis a shame nearly 250 yrs later, that the same problems prevail.

Slavery wasn't "ALL" the South was fighting for -- that I agree.
But the other issues weren't any better. The "states rights" argument is basically asking for a week central government. What happens after that --
do YOU get your voice heard more? No. The inter-state businesses low-ball and horse trade to get a better deal -- county by county, state by state.
You want our Coal Mine? Give up on worker safety and we'll make a deal. Every state that has been "weak" ends up getting run by business cartels.
Coal Miners in Virginia get to leave ruined landscapes while we have a resurgence of "black lung disease" because it means more profits to work
people longer and not bother keeping up the air quality.
The Southern States wanted the RIGHT to import from England -- rather than buy pricier goods from the Northern States.

The original "tea party" was about goods from England (tea) made cheap by subsidies -- no local US competition could gain a foothold.

Not adhering to a Trade Policy, would have meant that the Northern states would have had to "lower costs" just like the Southern states. Unfettered
capitalism creates slaves of us all -- who hasn't learned that lesson yet?

>> So yes, protecting our trade from cheap Chinese goods "deprives WalMart shoppers of liberty" -- but it also means more CItizens who can pay
taxes, raise kids, and build a society.

The Slave Holders weren't doing any favors for the common working man in the South -- and just like the Koch brother's funders of the Tea Party
today, they wanted other people to shed their blood to preserve their great way of life.

>> Modern Americans need to learn the true lesson of the civil war, before neighbor is tricked into fighting neighbor so that Donald Trump can skimp
on taxes.

Unfettered capitalism creates slaves of us all -- who hasn't learned that lesson yet

I don't think it is the unfettered capitalism, I think it is the Keynesian version where we only regulate the convenient things and provide an unfair
market place. If it were truly capitalism, then it should work. BUT, we can't ever have true capitalism, because our consumers are too
stupid, and they won't "buyer beware" and therefore they have to have government agencies give them quality assurances.

When is the last time you checked a gas pump to see if a gallon of gas really was a gallon, or the last time you sent a tylenol into a lab to see if
it really was 500 mg?

We expect the government to do those things, so we expect regulation, but with regulation comes favoritism. We make laws that are favorable to the
bigger, more well-known, and well-funded corporations but restrict the little guys. Instead of capitalism we get corporatism, and corporatism creates
slaves!

Unfettered capitalism creates slaves of us all -- who hasn't learned that lesson yet

I don't think it is the unfettered capitalism, I think it is the Keynesian version where we only regulate the convenient things and provide an unfair
market place. ...

LOL. "Unfair" marketplace. There's all kinds of fairness on Wall Street and it's bankrupting the economy.

So obviously, we can add your name to the list of people who haven't learned the lesson. Keynesian economics hasn't had a hand in rational economics
for decades now. The OIL companies still get fools to believe that Green Peace and not profits keeps them from building new refineries.

Unfettered capitalism creates slaves of us all -- who hasn't learned that lesson yet

...
We expect the government to do those things, so we expect regulation, but with regulation comes favoritism. We make laws that are favorable to the
bigger, more well-known, and well-funded corporations but restrict the little guys. Instead of capitalism we get corporatism, and corporatism creates
slaves!

That I agree with -- but how did we GET to the position that the large financial institutions actually PUSH FOR bills like Sarbanes-Oxley? I'm glad
you've caught on that it's corporations that push for most of the regulations.

But if I'm having to test my drinking water and weigh my aspirin - that ends up ruining the marketplace. You cannot have "fair competition" without
a referee with enough power to punish those who betray the public trust. WE have all sorts of fraud right now that isn't addressed; chicken pumped
with pork broth, olive oil that is not olive oil, honey that is not honey. It doesn't kill someone but the system is too corrupt to stop it.

>> We got to this point by allowing Rich People and Corporations too much power. We have to have public financed, instant run-off elections and ban
political parties and associations. Corporations cannot donate money -- it's a bribe.

You cannot have "fair competition" without a referee with enough power to punish those who betray the public trust

what
does fair competition have to do with public trust ??
good luck finding "fair competition" that includes public trust.

the public trust has been abused, trampled and diminished to a point of non-existence via this system of "fair competition". drugs, food, toys,
medical care, medical supplies, automobiles, you name it, it's all polluted and everything But fair.
when human lives are tallied as "acceptable loss ratios" ... there is nothing fair about it.

Originally posted by xstealth
"It is merely the pretense to establish sectional superiority and a more centralized form of government, and to deprive us of our rights and
liberties.”

Meaning our right to own slaves. I don't care what this guy claims. He knows damn well he was fighting for slavery. And pointing the finger at the
"Northerners." Please. History was written accurately. I wish the "South will rise again" crowd would just get over it. They lost. Plain and
simple. And thank God that they did.

You cannot have "fair competition" without a referee with enough power to punish those who betray the public trust

what
does fair competition have to do with public trust ??
good luck finding "fair competition" that includes public trust.

the public trust has been abused, trampled and diminished to a point of non-existence via this system of "fair competition". drugs, food, toys,
medical care, medical supplies, automobiles, you name it, it's all polluted and everything But fair.
when human lives are tallied as "acceptable loss ratios" ... there is nothing fair about it.

There is corruption -- but that doesn't mean it HAS to be that way. Once upon a time -- before this "war on government", there were enough FDA
inspectors to make sure we didn't have a huge outbreak of Cholera on our spinach and the drug companies weren't getting cover. We could break up
monopolies and ride herd on Banks.

Government is a tool -- and it's been the "stop big government" fanatics in the Republican party (for the most part) that have created this
revolving door with Coal Company execs writing legislation.

We can't all become food inspectors. This stuff USED TO WORK. Yes, once the public trust has been abused -- the system starts to break down. Welcome
to the Banana Republic known as the USA my friend.

If you want NO regulations and think that the marketplace will sort things out -- then visit Haiti or Honduras.

>> Europeans certainly have much better standards on their food and less corruption in that part of their government -- and it's directly tied with
how politicians are elected. Our Congress has to raise money every two years -- and it is now completely gamed towards sell outs.

These things can work -- because they have in the past. Just not with henchmen of the robber barons running for office.

Veering a bit off-topic from the Civil War, but it is an argument between "personal responsibility" and "government protections." What should
they do, and what should we do ourselves? The more they do, the less freedom and liberty we have, but the more we do, the less reassurances we will
have that everything is legit.

There was a lawsuit in Florida where a family sued a municipality for not preventing a shark attack on an Atlantic Coast Beach! Some people (usually
tourists) think the government is ultimately responsible for making everything perfectly safe, but that just isn't realistic.

The less we depend on the government, the better off we'll be, and the longer this grand experiment will last, but as we give up liberties at an
accelerating pace, the more and more unstable this Republic becomes.

Originally posted by xstealth
"It is merely the pretense to establish sectional superiority and a more centralized form of government, and to deprive us of our rights and
liberties.”

Meaning our right to own slaves. I don't care what this guy claims. He knows damn well he was fighting for slavery. And pointing the finger at the
"Northerners." Please. History was written accurately. I wish the "South will rise again" crowd would just get over it. They lost. Plain and simple.
And thank God that they did.

So, you are absolutetely happy with the broad powers the Federal Government currently has?

Assassination of US citizens. No-knock, sealed, paramilitary styled raids on our homes? Taxes and regulations on everything we do.
Molecular Scanners, wiretaps without cause. Walking into our homes uninvited because
our Grass is too high? Road blocks, asking for ID just walking down a NY street?
Banning hemp? Banning smoking of tobacco in our own cars and homes?

Remember when Rodney King caused an outrage, but now that is standard procedure that happens every day.

This is what the Northern victory ultimately produced, a further loss of liberty.

Originally posted by xstealth
“Every man should endeavor to understand the meaning of subjugation before it is too late… It means the history of this heroic struggle will be
written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by Northern schoolteachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the war; will
be impressed by the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, and our maimed veterans as fit objects for derision…
It is said slavery is all we are fighting for, and if we give it up we give up all. Even if this were true, which we deny, slavery is not all our
enemies are fighting for. It is merely the pretense to establish sectional superiority and a more centralized form of government, and to deprive us of
our rights and liberties.”

Maj. General Patrick R. Cleburne, CSA, January 1864

Here's a current context for you: A liberal student that lobbies and rallies for free health care and unlimited food stamps for a people that refuse
to contribute back into society's infrastructure - Goes and gets a JOB for the first time after graduation. This now, CONSERVATIVE recognition of the
drastically reduced paycheck from taxing they receive reminds them that they are slaves to an ideology that they are required to support, whether they
like it or not.

Conservation = Conservative = Constant = Constitution - You college kids living off of loans and Daddy's money getting any of this? Think about how
much you love the 1% when you go to sleep tonight. The school you attend, the movie stars you worship and the world you live in depends on the promise
of that achievable status.

Slavery is living in a world where 100% of the people have 100% chance of failure.

Originally posted by xstealth
"It is merely the pretense to establish sectional superiority and a more centralized form of government, and to deprive us of our rights and
liberties.”

Meaning our right to own slaves. I don't care what this guy claims. He knows damn well he was fighting for slavery. And pointing the finger at the
"Northerners." Please. History was written accurately. I wish the "South will rise again" crowd would just get over it. They lost. Plain and simple.
And thank God that they did.

to bad Patrick R. Cleburne didnt have any slaves, Also 1864, Patrick called together the leadership of the Army of Tennessee and put forth the
proposal to emancipate slaves and enlist them in the Confederate Army to secure Southern independence! So your argument doesn’t hold water. Not
Everyone in the south was a slave owner. Slaves were expensive and only the wealthy farmers had them. The slave issue was not brought into the war
until later when Lincoln was losing the war. He needed an issue that would unite the north, SLAVERY.

but what do i know, my family is only one of the largest privet owners of civil war collections in the united states.

Nope, but Grant and Sherman owned slaves, and they didn't bother freeing them until it 1865 when the 13th amendment came into effect, but even that
amendment was not ratified by all northern states. Delaware didn't ratify it until 1901!

Contrast that with Lee who freed his slaves (whom he inherited, didn't buy himself) early on in the war in 1862.

So, while Sherman was marching through, decimating the South, killing innocents and livestock, he was still a slave owner, and had slaves serving him
at the time! Lee had already freed his slaves prior to the Emancipation Proclamation, which in and of itself is a fraud, because it only applied to
the Confederate States!

If I were alive at that time ? I would have fought for the South, even tho I despise slavery and it seems odd to consider the South fighting for
independence. It seems evident to me that's mostly what it was about. And that doesn't even make the South more just and moral in it's efforts. It
simply means I'm opposed to an overly zealous and nosey ass government inspired and run by obvious tyrants.. A government that even as we see now is
enslaving all of us thru debt anyway.

The Black slaves of the South at that time and for the most part, might have had a lot more freedom and happiness than any us as citizens do today.
Today being a direct result of what happened yesterday in the 1860s.

Direct democracy was very much opposed by the framers of the United States Constitution and some signatories of the Declaration of Independence. They
saw a danger in majorities forcing their will on minorities. As a result, they advocated a representative democracy.

Alexander Hamilton said, "That a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is
more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very
character was tyranny; their figure, deformity."

Democracy is three wolves and a rabbit voting on what's for dinner.

I agree on many points, but slavery goes against every American Value that I hold dear. A states' rights should be limited friend! The loss of
liberty and attacks upon our freedoms is another matter entirely!

America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms it will be because we destroyed ourselves. Dont interfere with
anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained for it is the only safeguard of our liberties.

-Abraham Lincoln (1809-65) U.S. President.

Dont get me wrong the states should be empowered, and the Fed's role limited, but not so that states may trample even more civil liberties. A more
perfect union is what we should seek!

The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.